Me too. I was too young to have a mortgage when mortgage interest rates were sky high, but I did have term deposits at the time with amazing interest rates. Want to clear our mortgage asap. Should be done sometime next year, assuming health and job security are both fine.

Re emergency funds: I always want to have about a year's worth of expenses as my emergency fund. I plan on using online bank accounts with the ok-ish interest rates (or in combination with rolling term deposits). At the moment our emergency fund is in our redraw account. Takes a maximum of 3 business days to access it and we have a credit card to fill in any of the gaps.

Anyone who thinks that insurance is all you need is possibly being a little naive or optimistic. Claiming from insurance is not quick or easy, and requires a lot of evidence. How do I know this? A friend recently had to fill out the paperwork to claim money from her income protection insurance while processing the fact she might not see her 35th birthday, and navigating complex treatment options, while fuzzy headed from chemo and radiation is not easy. And you don't get payment immediately. Meanwhile, not everything is covered in the public health system, and if your life is at risk, waiting is not really a choice, and chemo and the various tests all add up to the thousands of dollars very quickly.

Yes, the likelihood is low, but the consequences are major. Ditto for non-elective surgery, emergency repairs to your house, or being involved in an accident. A compromise might be 3 months worth of expenses in a liquid emergency fund. But $0 is quite optimistic that everything can be covered by a credit card (including rent or mortgage, bills and so on).

I've been reading through some of the other interesting posts on the MMM forums regarding asset allocation. This has made me think that my 100% stock allocation (excluding emergency fund) might not be a great idea during the accumulation phase. From what I can understand, there are a few reasons why a portfolio should hold bonds:

Points 1 and 2 are very good reasons to hold at least some portion of your portfolio in bonds, but I think I've underestimated the impact of having to sell part of my portfolio if my emergency fund ever runs out. Take the following scenario - lets say I have 6 months of expenses in an emergency fund, and I have 100% of my portfolio in stocks. The market drops 30% over a few months, and I lose my job (I think the risk of this happening increases during market downturns). I burn through my 6 months of emergency funds, but I still don't have a job. I would be forced to start selling my stocks when they're 30% down until I find another job.

Lets take the same scenario, but mix up the asset allocation a bit. I still have 6 months of expenses in an emergency fund, but now I also have 12 months worth of expenses in bonds. The remainder of my portfolio would be in stocks. The market drops 30% over a few months, and I lose my job. I burn through my 6 months of emergency funds, but instead of selling stocks that would be down 30%, I would start to sell just my bonds (which have kept their value during the downturn). Once I've found a job, I would rebuild my emergency fund and bond position until they are back to the original allocation. This way, I wouldn't be forced to sell my stock position when it is 30% down.

Maybe I'm mad, but has anybody else thought that a bond allocation should be a fixed amount (relative to expenses) during the accumulation phase instead of a percentage of your total portfolio?

I saw that exact scenario play out around me many times post-Lehman here in Japan. People bought houses, bought stocks, etc during the boom times. Then had to liquidate when the bottom fell out of the market.

I think it was mentioned in the other thread but one of the best defenses against having to sell in a downturn is having a low COL to begin with. Of my friends here who lost their job post-Lehman, there was one guy whose expenses were so low that he didn't panic at all when he lost his six-figure salary job, he just went out and did some part time jobs and some English teaching for, like, a year in order to tide himself over. He could have benefited from keeping his job and continued piling more money into the market, sure, but all things considered things worked out ok for him.

What's the advantage of holding bonds over cash? My thinking is to keep over a years living expenses in a high interest savings account and the rest in LICs/ETFs.

The average return for bonds is higher when compared to cash; however a bond can fluctuate in value because of interest rates and other factors, so it is not capital stable.

I think from the perspective of an emergency fund, it would be prudent to hold most, if not all of your emergency fund in cash. I'm just asking whether there would be advantages in holding some bonds in addition to your emergency fund instead of 100% in stocks during the accumulation phase. This would give you an additional buffer - you could sell down these bonds instead of selling stocks during a market correction if you happen to burn through your emergency funds.

Glad I found this thread, it has been very interesting. This latest question on bonds vs cash coincides with what I've had bouncing around in my head for a couple of weeks.

I've been doing a lot of reading about portfolio balance for different goals, and most of the rationale for the different (passive) strategies make sense to me. What I still haven't got my head around is why even the most aggressive fund options still put around 10% in bonds and/or other fixed-interest instruments. If you've opted for a passive aggressive strategy you're looking at the very long term, only care about growth, and are ignoring volatility, so why have anything at all in bonds?

To make some guesses:1. As discussed here, it gives you something to sell in an emergency without taking a hit if the market is in a downturn. But in that case (and aside from the bonds vs cash argument) is a fixed percentage of your portfolio necessary instead of just a dollar amount (that could be held in fixed interest investments or even just a good savings account).2. It's just another bit of diversification. But is it wasteful diversity if you already have good diversification in equities across sectors and countries?3. People have calculated that (on average and over time) the return of a bond allocation of that size during a downturn is greater than the return it would otherwise provide?

I get principle of negative correlation and why it makes sense for a number of portfolio types - when you need to produce regular income, for example - but wondered if it was worth the opportunity cost if you were going to set-and-forget an aggressive portfolio for thirty years. I presumed you'd move a portion into bonds several years before needing your portfolio to produce an income and weather a downturn, but until then go for growth alone.

What I still haven't got my head around is why even the most aggressive fund options still put around 10% in bonds and/or other fixed-interest instruments. If you've opted for a passive aggressive strategy you're looking at the very long term, only care about growth, and are ignoring volatility, so why have anything at all in bonds?

you are correct.

for me, in the accumulation phase, I am 100% shares.

This could potentially get too scary for me as I approach FIRE, so I might change the asset allocation to include fixed interest, or term deposits, or bonds.

I've been doing a lot of reading about portfolio balance for different goals, and most of the rationale for the different (passive) strategies make sense to me. What I still haven't got my head around is why even the most aggressive fund options still put around 10% in bonds and/or other fixed-interest instruments. If you've opted for a passive aggressive strategy you're looking at the very long term, only care about growth, and are ignoring volatility, so why have anything at all in bonds?

A key reason is that most investors do not really know their own risk appetite. In particular, an investor who has not been through a substantial downturn with a substantial "chunk of change" at risk doesn't really know if they can ignore volatility. If we can, that's great. If we can't, better-off being honest with yourself, recognising it and setting your asset allocation accordingly rather than selling in a panic during an inevitable periodic downturn.

I've been doing a lot of reading about portfolio balance for different goals, and most of the rationale for the different (passive) strategies make sense to me. What I still haven't got my head around is why even the most aggressive fund options still put around 10% in bonds and/or other fixed-interest instruments. If you've opted for a passive aggressive strategy you're looking at the very long term, only care about growth, and are ignoring volatility, so why have anything at all in bonds?

A key reason is that most investors do not really know their own risk appetite. In particular, an investor who has not been through a substantial downturn with a substantial "chunk of change" at risk doesn't really know if they can ignore volatility. If we can, that's great. If we can't, better-off being honest with yourself, recognising it and setting your asset allocation accordingly rather than selling in a panic during an inevitable periodic downturn.

This is true. I thought I had a high risk tolerance....until 2008 when I lost a huge chunk of change.

Some of the cavalier attitudes I read on the MMM forum make me squirm.

I thought I had a high risk tolerance....until 2008 when I lost a huge chunk of change.

Some of the cavalier attitudes I read on the MMM forum make me squirm.

I actually think my risk tolerance is higher than I give myself credit for but I wouldn't go so far as describing myself as cavalier - more like rational over the emotional.

I track the value of my direct share portfolio and managed funds each fortnight and just went back through it. Direct shares fell from a pre GFC peak of $72k to a low of $46k (break even of $75k). Managed funds fell from all time high of $115k to $64k with $8.5k of my own money thrown in from my own pocket to provide a buffer against a margin call.

I recall feeling concerned but never panicked about the market direction. I also bought throughout the downturn and practice selective reinvestment of divs and the shares are now sitting at $143k and the managed funds at $130k.

BHP / South32 demerger? Sell straight away or hold because Glencore will make a play for it?

Can't really call it a minor spin-off - at $22 billion valuation it'll still be a top 20 company easy.

Accountants, Lawyers and Investment Bankers have had a field day with this one, upwards of $700 million in fees and expenses. Makes you wonder whether safeguarding shareholder's interests is still the main game, as opposed to keeping white collar workers in jobs :)

I know several business owners who just couldn't sell their businesses and ended up walking away. Then there are businesses like Bullocky Bill's at the "dog on the tuckerbox" stop near Gundagai. They have been trying to sell that business for at least the last three years (huge sign out the front for a couple of years, now there is a smaller sign on the doorway - probably put people off). It is always full of customers, and it is a huge place with a big takeaway/restaurant, locally made gifts (mainly food, jam...) and a fruit and vegetable shop. It appears to be running down a bit now, and the place actually at the dog statue has re-opened (it was closed for about ten years from just after Bullocky Bill's opened), and actually produces food that is as good.

There are a lot of businesses being squashed by technology. A friend (who owns a business) was talking about her brother who has a news agency and wants to retire - can't sell a news agency for anything these days (particularly as post office news agencies are all saying they are losing money on the post office side of their business). Her business has gone from four shops to two over the past few years although you would think the business they are in would be technology proof. The huge scaling down of the public service has hit Canberra businesses hard.

People went into these businesses, worked hard, made the business work and give them a livelihood, and now, when they need to sell the business to fund their retirement, the business simply can't sell.

MMM is a very recent find for me, very happy to discover it! I'm hoping to get some insight into developing an investment strategy, so here goes......

I have some equity investments already, made up of individual ASX stocks (NAB, CBA, CSL, COH, BWP), LIC's (AFI, ARG, CTN) and ETF's (VAP). All up ~100k, so fairly small holdings in each as I just got started a few years ago and have been dabbling. I also have ~18KUSD split evenly between ETF's VOO (S&P500) and VXF (US Extended Market) and Berkshire-B, all held via a US broking account.

I'm now at the point where I want to develop a strategy (rather than continue the dabbling!) and ramp up the investments considerably. I have a lump sum in cash that I want to invest and I'm finding it difficult to put together a good plan. I've had some introductory chats to some financial advisers that has more or less confirmed that I probably won't use them!

The ETF and\or LIC path still appeals, I just need to figure out the strategy and breakdown. I read the greaterfool.ca blog, although Canadian there seems to be some relevance to Australia, and (at least for me) his thoughts seems to resonate.

He often mentions a portfolio as follows, with re-balancing (I think a couple of times a year), along the lines of:

60% Growth: ETF's, comprising a small REIT holding, then one third evenly split between ASX, US, and international markets. Mix of large cap and smaller cap in each.

Before getting into how such a portfolio breakdown might look, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the strategy. One part in particular I'm unsure about (uneducated perhaps!) is how the growth and balance components offset each other. I know the idea is that when equities are down, the fixed income will be up, and vice-versa, but in practice it's unclear how this will help me (FYI I'm planning to hold my portfolio long term and live off the income in the not too distant future, perhaps in < 5 years).

I've got a basic understanding how moves in interest rates affect bond prices and yields but I'm unsure how this is a good thing for the portfolio - e.g. do I care that bond prices (ETF's) go up in a market downturn.....I'm not planning on selling anyway. And if I buy them in a downturn it would suggest I'm paying for something that is going to decline in value, as well as getting a low yield. As I said, it's fair to say I don't understand this well.....

There is probably lots more to add, but I'd be appreciative of your thoughts.

I like the idea of not being able to take Super as a lump sum. So often I hear of people deliberately spending down the lump sum in order to qualify for the pension (or at least a part). It will be interesting to see if/how this develops but would work better for those that have had access to Super for their full working life rather than those that haven't.

Do you guys think technical analysis works?That is purely using historical information on price on and volume to understand "trends", and profit from them?

No, I don't. My basis:- I've got a degree in econometrics - Played with it over about 10 years (in the thousands of hours), with a mix of real and play money- My results did not generate any risk adjusted alpha when used for real trades. Back testing looked super rosy!

My conclusion:- Either it doesn't work; OR- I'm not very skilled using it (and after that much time, unlikely to improve); Hence- I'm better off putting my time into something with a higher productivity, or with a better leisure value.

I still use a bit of value/fundamental analysis, but in the main I'm a passive buy and hold investor.

60% Growth: ETF's, comprising a small REIT holding, then one third evenly split between ASX, US, and international markets. Mix of large cap and smaller cap in each. 40% Defensive: ETF's, Half in bonds and half in preference shares

TJEH, that looks fine. There is no "Correct" asset allocation, and your 60/40 idea seems fair. The main considerations are your (1)years-to-retirement and (2)risk appetite. If these 2 things are lower, you need a less risky asset allocation.

Quote

is how the growth and balance components offset each other. (buy and hold)

"Growth" assets will be worth more in the long run, but have lots of ups-and-downs every year."Defensive" assets will be worth less in the long run, but have less ups-and-downs every year.

a 60/40 portfolio averages out the growth and volatility. asset values will have modertately good improvement, with moderate volatility. cash income (dividends) will have moderately good growth with moderate volatility.

compare this to a 10/90 portfolio which has very shitty growth and almost zero volatility. Or a 100/0 portfolio which has excellent growth with wild volatility fluctuations.

Do you guys think technical analysis works?That is purely using historical information on price on and volume to understand "trends", and profit from them?

No, I don't. My basis:- I've got a degree in econometrics - Played with it over about 10 years (in the thousands of hours), with a mix of real and play money- My results did not generate any risk adjusted alpha when used for real trades. Back testing looked super rosy!

My conclusion:- Either it doesn't work; OR- I'm not very skilled using it (and after that much time, unlikely to improve); Hence- I'm better off putting my time into something with a higher productivity, or with a better leisure value.

I still use a bit of value/fundamental analysis, but in the main I'm a passive buy and hold investor.

+1 (though without the degree in econometrics)

I have seen firsthand how little institutional traders rely on it. They talk it up a lot (especially candlestick here in Japan), and are quick to attribute certain movements to it after the fact. But 90% of their profit comes from a combination of long term positions and short term flow trading around market announcements.

60% Growth: ETF's, comprising a small REIT holding, then one third evenly split between ASX, US, and international markets. Mix of large cap and smaller cap in each. 40% Defensive: ETF's, Half in bonds and half in preference shares

TJEH, that looks fine. There is no "Correct" asset allocation, and your 60/40 idea seems fair. The main considerations are your (1)years-to-retirement and (2)risk appetite. If these 2 things are lower, you need a less risky asset allocation.

Quote

is how the growth and balance components offset each other. (buy and hold)

"Growth" assets will be worth more in the long run, but have lots of ups-and-downs every year."Defensive" assets will be worth less in the long run, but have less ups-and-downs every year.

a 60/40 portfolio averages out the growth and volatility. asset values will have modertately good improvement, with moderate volatility. cash income (dividends) will have moderately good growth with moderate volatility.

compare this to a 10/90 portfolio which has very shitty growth and almost zero volatility. Or a 100/0 portfolio which has excellent growth with wild volatility fluctuations.

TJEH let me know if you have any questions?

Thanks This_Is_My_Username - sorry for my slackness in replying!

Your comments re growth and volatility make sense.

I suppose, perhaps fortunately, I haven't been invested in the market throughout any significant downturns, hence the importance of bonds are not as clear as they could be.

I'm trying to decide how to invest the defensive part of my portfolio. Previously I've just used high interest accounts and term deposits. I'm trying to see how bonds could help me.

As naive as this sounds, if I'm relying on my investments for my income, should things turn pearshaped on the equities front, theoretically the bonds would be up in value, giving me something to sell in order to generate some income? Maybe.....

I am looking for some advice on the best setup and approach to build and structure my investments. I am way too heavy on cash (I've been spending disproportionate amounts of time earning the money rather than investing it wisely).

My current situation:I am 30 y.o with a wife (whose not working) and baby. High income job (~500k p.a. net but can fluctuate quite a lot year to year). Living in Sydney and renting so cost of living isn't that low ($700 rent p/w) but otherwise rather frugal. I would like to be able to move onto something more chilled within say 2- 5 years (it's hard to do this when you find yourself in such a good job), and be setup for life (and future generations too if possible).

Trust:- Approx $400k worth of shares in private company I work for (ownership is tied to my employment with them) and yields ~$60k in dividends which are distributed to my wife who isn't working (this is the reason why they are in a trust otherwise I probably wouldn't have set it up).

Super:- $80k (in super) AUS stocks

Personal:- Approx $250k in public stocks (mostly US stocks), not too happy with these holdings either, and think i should just get rid of most of it even if it incurs some CGT, albeit much less than it should be :(- $1.5m cash

Wife's Name:- $20k of AUS stocks- $50k cash (I know, she should hold all the cash, as her marginal tax rate is lower, I'm in the process of doing this now)

Net worth approx $2.3M

After reading through this whole thread, there are several things I want to do, and would really appreciate your input:- I need to figure out the best way to structure everything: - should I buy all the ETFs, LICs etc in the trusts name, or should we just buy these in my wifes name? (trust is more flexible on distributing earnings but has the added admin overhead) What are the things to consider other than that? What is the CGT treatment of assets held in trust? i.e. do you get the 50% exemption if held for greater than 1 year? - Should I contribute the full concessional amount to super (I have to pay 30% on contributions because of high income)? - I have AMP for my super and am pretty clueless about it. Should I switch to a low cost one? Or should I consider an SMSF? (btw, the reason I don't have more in super is that I've only been working in australia for 3 years). Is there any point in contributing the non-concessional amount?

- Clean up my portfolio and just concentrate on getting similar returns to the market instead of stock picking (so that probably means selling all the random stock positions I have)

- Move more of my cash position into equities overtime (I'm quite annoyed I didn't come to this realisation a year ago before the markets had rallied :p)

- What do you guys thing about property? I don't like that I'm missing out on the CGT exemption on PPOR, but I feel it's very expensive but have thought that for the last 3 years since moving here and despite this it has gone up in price a lot in Sydney in those 3 years. I feel like I've missed the boat on this as well and am hoping for a big correction so I can get something at a reasonable price but this is probably foolish as there is so much incentive for the governments to prop up property prices and still a decent amount of room to lower rates to avoid people defaulting on their mortgages.

AMP is just about the worst place to have super - get it into somewhere else!

If you have only been in Australia for 3 years, what is your citizenship (I'm guessing US), and where do you plan to live in retirement (or in the future)? Obviously $1.5M cash is not optimal, but where you should put it depends upon where you intend to call home.

AMP is just about the worst place to have super - get it into somewhere else!

If you have only been in Australia for 3 years, what is your citizenship (I'm guessing US), and where do you plan to live in retirement (or in the future)? Obviously $1.5M cash is not optimal, but where you should put it depends upon where you intend to call home.

Hi deborah, thanks for replying. I will get to work on moving my super from AMP, any recommendations? ING Direct have a low cost super fund I believe.I'm actually Australian, but started my first job in Europe so that's why I've only been working here for 3 years. There is a chance we move back there at some point (say 20% chance).

I suppose, perhaps fortunately, I haven't been invested in the market throughout any significant downturns, hence the importance of bonds are not as clear as they could be.

I'm trying to decide how to invest the defensive part of my portfolio. Previously I've just used high interest accounts and term deposits. I'm trying to see how bonds could help me.

As naive as this sounds, if I'm relying on my investments for my income, should things turn pearshaped on the equities front, theoretically the bonds would be up in value, giving me something to sell in order to generate some income? Maybe.....

try VGB or VAF.

but I can't really comment on bonds. for me personally, I am 100% shares and 100% bravery.

Do you guys think technical analysis works?That is purely using historical information on price on and volume to understand "trends", and profit from them?

No, I don't. My basis:- I've got a degree in econometrics - Played with it over about 10 years (in the thousands of hours), with a mix of real and play money- My results did not generate any risk adjusted alpha when used for real trades. Back testing looked super rosy!

My conclusion:- Either it doesn't work; OR- I'm not very skilled using it (and after that much time, unlikely to improve); Hence- I'm better off putting my time into something with a higher productivity, or with a better leisure value.

I still use a bit of value/fundamental analysis, but in the main I'm a passive buy and hold investor.

Thanks Chris and others for your input. Great to hear some real word feedback. Being exposed to the academic point of view (being a finance major myself) - I'm aware that its got a bad reputation. It just sounds ridiculous when people start talking on youtube about shooting stars and other random patterns appearing.

One guy managed to convince me where it may have merit. If you know how the big end of town work - i.e. how they buy or sell a large amount of shares or fx - you may be able to get in and out with some kind of positive expected value. For example, you're a country who needs $100m of a particular currency, who starts putting in buy orders a particular way.

But, i'm sure the people who are making these trades will adapt, and how to get a signal of this happening may be difficult, with false positives etc.

In any case I have an 13week course at Uni where I need to actively day trade according to a trading strategy i set up now. We can use fundamental or technical, or a combination. With such a short period, I didn't see a whole lot of point in investing in value, so going to give the technicals a whirl. We get a lot of speakers coming in from industry who are day traders. So how is this industry around if it doesn't work ? I suppose for a lot of them the client is footing the bill, so as long as you can convince the client it works, they get their cut..

AMP is just about the worst place to have super - get it into somewhere else!

If you have only been in Australia for 3 years, what is your citizenship (I'm guessing US), and where do you plan to live in retirement (or in the future)? Obviously $1.5M cash is not optimal, but where you should put it depends upon where you intend to call home.

Hi deborah, thanks for replying. I will get to work on moving my super from AMP, any recommendations? ING Direct have a low cost super fund I believe.I'm actually Australian, but started my first job in Europe so that's why I've only been working here for 3 years. There is a chance we move back there at some point (say 20% chance).

JamesSyd...what on earth kind of job do you have as a 30yo that pays 500k per year?

Do you guys think technical analysis works?That is purely using historical information on price on and volume to understand "trends", and profit from them?

No, I don't. My basis:- I've got a degree in econometrics - Played with it over about 10 years (in the thousands of hours), with a mix of real and play money- My results did not generate any risk adjusted alpha when used for real trades. Back testing looked super rosy!

My conclusion:- Either it doesn't work; OR- I'm not very skilled using it (and after that much time, unlikely to improve); Hence- I'm better off putting my time into something with a higher productivity, or with a better leisure value.

I still use a bit of value/fundamental analysis, but in the main I'm a passive buy and hold investor.

Thanks Chris and others for your input. Great to hear some real word feedback. Being exposed to the academic point of view (being a finance major myself) - I'm aware that its got a bad reputation. It just sounds ridiculous when people start talking on youtube about shooting stars and other random patterns appearing.

One guy managed to convince me where it may have merit. If you know how the big end of town work - i.e. how they buy or sell a large amount of shares or fx - you may be able to get in and out with some kind of positive expected value. For example, you're a country who needs $100m of a particular currency, who starts putting in buy orders a particular way.

But, i'm sure the people who are making these trades will adapt, and how to get a signal of this happening may be difficult, with false positives etc.

In any case I have an 13week course at Uni where I need to actively day trade according to a trading strategy i set up now. We can use fundamental or technical, or a combination. With such a short period, I didn't see a whole lot of point in investing in value, so going to give the technicals a whirl. We get a lot of speakers coming in from industry who are day traders. So how is this industry around if it doesn't work ? I suppose for a lot of them the client is footing the bill, so as long as you can convince the client it works, they get their cut..

Look at how much Tattslotto and any other form of gambling is rigged against you, and how many people indulge in it each week.

AMP is just about the worst place to have super - get it into somewhere else!

If you have only been in Australia for 3 years, what is your citizenship (I'm guessing US), and where do you plan to live in retirement (or in the future)? Obviously $1.5M cash is not optimal, but where you should put it depends upon where you intend to call home.

Hi deborah, thanks for replying. I will get to work on moving my super from AMP, any recommendations? ING Direct have a low cost super fund I believe.I'm actually Australian, but started my first job in Europe so that's why I've only been working here for 3 years. There is a chance we move back there at some point (say 20% chance).

JamesSyd...what on earth kind of job do you have as a 30yo that pays 500k per year?

I think the job title is "be born in the 1%" LOL. of-course i could be wrong, no offence intended.

AMP is just about the worst place to have super - get it into somewhere else!

If you have only been in Australia for 3 years, what is your citizenship (I'm guessing US), and where do you plan to live in retirement (or in the future)? Obviously $1.5M cash is not optimal, but where you should put it depends upon where you intend to call home.

Hi deborah, thanks for replying. I will get to work on moving my super from AMP, any recommendations? ING Direct have a low cost super fund I believe.I'm actually Australian, but started my first job in Europe so that's why I've only been working here for 3 years. There is a chance we move back there at some point (say 20% chance).

JamesSyd...what on earth kind of job do you have as a 30yo that pays 500k per year?

I think the job title is "be born in the 1%" LOL. of-course i could be wrong, no offence intended.

Nah, not born in the 1%.But I do consider myself very lucky. I'm very fortunate to be in the position I am and to have found such a job.

I'd rather not disclose the job for privacy reasons (you can PM me if you'd really like to know).

AMP is just about the worst place to have super - get it into somewhere else!

If you have only been in Australia for 3 years, what is your citizenship (I'm guessing US), and where do you plan to live in retirement (or in the future)? Obviously $1.5M cash is not optimal, but where you should put it depends upon where you intend to call home.

Hi deborah, thanks for replying. I will get to work on moving my super from AMP, any recommendations? ING Direct have a low cost super fund I believe.I'm actually Australian, but started my first job in Europe so that's why I've only been working here for 3 years. There is a chance we move back there at some point (say 20% chance).

JamesSyd...what on earth kind of job do you have as a 30yo that pays 500k per year?

I think the job title is "be born in the 1%" LOL. of-course i could be wrong, no offence intended.

Nah, not born in the 1%.But I do consider myself very lucky. I'm very fortunate to be in the position I am and to have found such a job.

I'd rather not disclose the job for privacy reasons (you can PM me if you'd really like to know).